4 ms·

Something Adam Curtis has been going on about lately with more emphasis in each production is the assertion that we as a society are so blinded by the illusions

Something Adam Curtis has been going on about lately with more emphasis in each production is the assertion that we as a society are so blinded by the illusions we live in that we are incapable of imagining what a better world would look like. Often conspicuously absent is what such a world ought to be, in his view. As brilliant as his works are and have been, the longer he keeps asking the same question without providing an answer the more it becomes a well-researched “we live in a society.”

frabbit 6y ago
If that interests you I highly recommend Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism.
Guthur 6y ago
It is entirely possible that there is actually no significantly better way for us to go about this. The assumption that life can be good and happy for all is just fundamentally flawed in the face of the human condition and physical reality. In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being. And given the differences in the human psyche it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  There's a gulf between something better and utopia.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    Better can be very subjective. What you think is better may not align with what I think is better. One of us may feel individual freedom at all costs, one might be the greater good trumps the individual.
    - pietrovismara 6y ago
      You want individual freedom at all costs? Go to live in a jungle. Take the complete freedom with the dangers it brings with itself. Otherwise you want the benefits of living in a society? The only way is you're going to sacrifice your freedom.
      - Guthur 6y ago
        And your immediate black and white view shows how impossible it will actually be. I've shown two sides of the most obvious dichotomy and you've show how intractable this will be by instantly expelling me, theoretically.
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        There's no moderate view available for me until people keep starving or are forced to slave away their life just for mere survival.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  > it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time. But it's actually really easy. Every single human has the same basic needs. Cover those and you've already done a great step towards collective happiness. > In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being. How, besides lying to ourselves, can we then justify the fact that in some countries children starve to death, while in others people's biggest issue is what model of smartphone they're going to buy next? Aren't we already imposing material limits to billions of people who don't have access to basic resources? Is that kind of limit somehow less important than the limit we might impose on someone else to not own a yacht?
  - Guthur 6y ago
    And so we can all live with what is deemed essential and doled out by the state? Guess what? I don't think that's better.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      Also there is a massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled. That may or may not be true. There is a high degree of relativity in our feeling of contentment.
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        > massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled Never made this assumption. Quite the opposite, I'm saying the very fundamental basis to "happiness" is to have your basic needs covered at all times. Only then, you can start to build something on top.
    - pietrovismara 6y ago
      It might not be better for you, but it is for the great majority of the world's population. For this very reason, I want you to have everything you need to live with dignity. I don't care at all if you want more, if that means someone else is going to lack anything essential as a consequence.
djs070 6y ago
The documentarian shouldn’t be required to provide an answer or an alternative. Their job is to present material and it’s up to us to respond. In fact what I _really_ dislike about Netflix documentaries is how heavy-handed they are with the solutions that they dictate, James Cameron’s veganism propaganda being the most obvious example - completely coincidental that he owns a plant-based protein manufacturing company
- dingaling 6y ago
  I think they should at least present an outline of how they'd improve the status quo, otherwise it's just like filing a bug report and walking away. It's very easy to say "this is broken", and to present that in a glossy and slick manner, but the real challenge is contributing to the fix.
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    A documentary creator isn’t necessarily a leader. A bug filer isn’t necessarily a coder. Why should we assume that someone with the capability to see the problems needs to also be the one to posit solutions? We have plenty of people in society whose job solving problems actually is.
bshepard 6y ago
The 1983 utopian fantasy "Bolo'Bolo" proposes an extremely workable strategy for a better ordering of the human species: bolos -- that is, micronational formations of 300-500 people. I've been trying for the last ten years to create an MVP for such a bolo, and will continue to do so until a more viable path presents itself or, I find myself living in Bolo'Bolo. https://libcom.org/files/pm_bolo_bolo.pdf https://libcom.org/files/pm_bolo_bolo.pdf
clydethefrog 6y ago
His answer to that is a grand vision of change, but he also aknowledges that is a dangerous concept. Listen to his answer in this interview (transcript in comments) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaPZ-xMPGY&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaPZ-xMPGY&feature=youtu.be
thinkingemote 6y ago
I was at an interview with him a few years ago. I think his view of the world was basically nihilistic. Not pessimistic but a kind of anti optimism

frabbit 6y ago

If that interests you I highly recommend Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism.

Guthur 6y ago

It is entirely possible that there is actually no significantly better way for us to go about this. The assumption that life can be good and happy for all is just fundamentally flawed in the face of the human condition and physical reality. In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being. And given the differences in the human psyche it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

heavyset_go 6y ago
There's a gulf between something better and utopia.
- Guthur 6y ago
  Better can be very subjective. What you think is better may not align with what I think is better. One of us may feel individual freedom at all costs, one might be the greater good trumps the individual.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    You want individual freedom at all costs? Go to live in a jungle. Take the complete freedom with the dangers it brings with itself. Otherwise you want the benefits of living in a society? The only way is you're going to sacrifice your freedom.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      And your immediate black and white view shows how impossible it will actually be. I've shown two sides of the most obvious dichotomy and you've show how intractable this will be by instantly expelling me, theoretically.
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        There's no moderate view available for me until people keep starving or are forced to slave away their life just for mere survival.
pietrovismara 6y ago
> it seems inheritently impossible to please all of the people all of the time. But it's actually really easy. Every single human has the same basic needs. Cover those and you've already done a great step towards collective happiness. > In the absence of infinite and exploitable energy it's hard to see how you wont have a society that is going to directly or indirectly impose limits upon the individuals life and well being. How, besides lying to ourselves, can we then justify the fact that in some countries children starve to death, while in others people's biggest issue is what model of smartphone they're going to buy next? Aren't we already imposing material limits to billions of people who don't have access to basic resources? Is that kind of limit somehow less important than the limit we might impose on someone else to not own a yacht?
- Guthur 6y ago
  And so we can all live with what is deemed essential and doled out by the state? Guess what? I don't think that's better.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    Also there is a massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled. That may or may not be true. There is a high degree of relativity in our feeling of contentment.
    - pietrovismara 6y ago
      > massive assumption that the person with the smart phone or fancy car is actually happy and fulfilled Never made this assumption. Quite the opposite, I'm saying the very fundamental basis to "happiness" is to have your basic needs covered at all times. Only then, you can start to build something on top.
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    It might not be better for you, but it is for the great majority of the world's population. For this very reason, I want you to have everything you need to live with dignity. I don't care at all if you want more, if that means someone else is going to lack anything essential as a consequence.

djs070 6y ago

The documentarian shouldn’t be required to provide an answer or an alternative. Their job is to present material and it’s up to us to respond. In fact what I _really_ dislike about Netflix documentaries is how heavy-handed they are with the solutions that they dictate, James Cameron’s veganism propaganda being the most obvious example - completely coincidental that he owns a plant-based protein manufacturing company

dingaling 6y ago
I think they should at least present an outline of how they'd improve the status quo, otherwise it's just like filing a bug report and walking away. It's very easy to say "this is broken", and to present that in a glossy and slick manner, but the real challenge is contributing to the fix.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  A documentary creator isn’t necessarily a leader. A bug filer isn’t necessarily a coder. Why should we assume that someone with the capability to see the problems needs to also be the one to posit solutions? We have plenty of people in society whose job solving problems actually is.

bshepard 6y ago

The 1983 utopian fantasy "Bolo'Bolo" proposes an extremely workable strategy for a better ordering of the human species: bolos -- that is, micronational formations of 300-500 people. I've been trying for the last ten years to create an MVP for such a bolo, and will continue to do so until a more viable path presents itself or, I find myself living in Bolo'Bolo. https://libcom.org/files/pm_bolo_bolo.pdf https://libcom.org/files/pm_bolo_bolo.pdf

clydethefrog 6y ago

His answer to that is a grand vision of change, but he also aknowledges that is a dangerous concept. Listen to his answer in this interview (transcript in comments) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaPZ-xMPGY&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaPZ-xMPGY&feature=youtu.be

thinkingemote 6y ago

I was at an interview with him a few years ago. I think his view of the world was basically nihilistic. Not pessimistic but a kind of anti optimism